Gays in the military

erikvarho wrote:SCENE: IRAQ
[We see our two heroes in the midst of an intense firefight.]

Marine 1: *shooting people*
Marine 2: *shooting people*
Marine 1: Phew! That was tiring. All that killing.
Marine 2: Yep.
Marine 1: You hear they want to let gays do this with us?
Marine 2: Disgusting.
Marine 1: Seriously.
Marine 2: I mean, I just can't stand being around that kind of immorality.
Marine 1: Yeah bro. Can't a guy go kill some people without some dude who likes dudes all up in his business? It's just so sinful and wrong.
Marine 2: *fires at oncoming insurgent* Got 'em.
Marine 1: Sweet.

END SCENE.

ahem.
LOL nice!

But I also believe there is a difference between killing and murder. War is a regular part of the old testiment. God commands it a lot of the time. And you know that God gave authority to governments to KILL murders. To put them to death.

All in all, I would say that killing in war isn't wrong. It is...definitely twisted and undesirable, but utterly necessary. Homosexuality...not sure theres a bypass for that one.

You do make an excellent point to all those that condemn homo's though ;-). You should write to SNL or something, that would totally make it with a few more political jokes ;-)
-Tyler

Dude, I don't start off postings by being offensive simply because that's immature, it turns people off to what you want to say, and renders you ineffective.
But get real! ;-)
A: Lowering stress? I understand not adding MORE stress into their lives...but think about it. Who is gonna care that Jimmy looks at you like a piece of meat when you've been taking life all day? I think the army, navy, air force rigors might even be enough to turn gays straight.
B: Why would anyone care if they're in the army? If someone tries to spoon you, kick his ass. It's that simple. I mean, it's the friggin' army for crying out loud. You go there to learn how tokill people. It would be indeed for a gay guy to try to molest anyone... (Not that they would try that anyway, just worst case scenario). I just don't see it as a realistic problem. Perhaps you have been in the army and know better, but that's just how I see it.
I'm sorry if that came off as dissing you, I totally didn't want to. I just got passionate =)
-Tyler

caffran wrote:I agee, but think for a minute. Say you are about to take a big exam. You are sitting next to a member of the opposite sex who you either A. find revolting B. are quite attracted to or C. are friends with but they are making sexual advances upon you. Now with them in close proximity during a time of concentration, don't you think you may be distracted a bit?

I agree that acceptance is good but honestly it doesn't neccesarily work well in this case. It would be great to have no barriers because of sexual orientaion, but it's just not realistic at this point in time.
(I'm going to be unncessarily rude, I value your opinion. Please do not take this personally)

They let women into the army.
I think I effectively destroyed the argument for not letting in gays.

Also, the army specializes in self-discipline. You like someone, you're uncomfortable. Get over it. Master it.
=)
-Tyler

Ha ha, you're right Solarflare.
People have to deal with people they don't like all the time. The army is just one of those cases that if you are straight and anti-homosexuality you have to get over it, and -if- a gay person makes advances on you, I'm pretty sure it would not be difficult to kick their butt as you are in the army.
I think its a lot worse to let Nazi/racist/skinheads into the army that it is gays. But that's neither here nor there.

I value your insight. I would have a agreed with you a few years ago. Don't get me wrong, it completely weirds me out when a guy checks me out. However, what I choose to do with that is utterly up to me. It's also a valuable lesson that teachers men just how...exposed it feels to the woman when they check her out. It definitely gave me a reality check: Don't stare.

You may care if a man is checking you out. So what? I would simply have to be blunt and say get over it, there are far more important things at hand to concentrate on then who's looking at your butt.

Agreed with the point of the military, sorry if I gave the impression that I thought the army was a training school for murder. (Which I don't believe either, but had you read any of my other posts you might understand that).

No you can't beat someone up in the army without repurcussions, but what the point I was trying to make is that the straight men are not these poor helpless victims of the evil over-powering gays in the military. If they try to rape you, you can defend yourself. That's all I was observing.

No I don't think it would cause a worthwhile ammount of tension on the field. My point is, your spending your days having bombs exploding your head, facing death everyday. You simply are not going to care if Joe is giving you the sexy look.

And I think everyone that is straight agrees on your last point.

You're right, there's a reason that the don't ask, don't tell rule works in the military. It's for the homosexuals best interest that they not let it be known that they are gay. Thus, they don't act on it, no one asks, no one minds, we can all defend the rights of the people together.

Solarflare wrote:You're right, there's a reason that the don't ask, don't tell rule works in the military. It's for the homosexuals best interest that they not let it be known that they are gay. Thus, they don't act on it, no one asks, no one minds, we can all defend the rights of the people together.

Agreed.

Solarflare wrote:LOL nice!

But I also believe there is a difference between killing and murder. War is a regular part of the old testiment. God commands it a lot of the time. And you know that God gave authority to governments to KILL murders. To put them to death.

All in all, I would say that killing in war isn't wrong. It is...definitely twisted and undesirable, but utterly necessary. Homosexuality...not sure theres a bypass for that one.

You do make an excellent point to all those that condemn homo's though ;-). You should write to SNL or something, that would totally make it with a few more political jokes ;-)
-Tyler
I'm going to be unnecessarily rude. I value your opinion. Please do not take this personally.

Remember that just because YOU believe that YOUR god commands something doesn't mean everyone accepts that command OR that god, ANY god for that matter. Just because the God of Abraham declared something 4500 years ago does not mean that it is universally accepted today, or ever was in the past. If you want look at the New Testament...Jesus forgave a convicted man while on the cross. If you notice the entire "Kill the Infidel" side of Christianity from the Old Testament is nonexistant in the New. It is nonexistant in most other mainstream modern religions. People taking the view that religion makes war okay have been responsible for millions of deaths worldwide. Take the Nazis for example. They believed that religion made war okay, made GENOCIDE okay. I hope you do not believe that the deaths of gays would be okay simply because YOUR religion teaches it is a sin to be homosexual.

You state that "killling in war isn't wrong. It is...definitely twisted and undesirable but utterly necessary." War may indeed be necessary at many times, when it is justified enough to allow you to "bypass" your beliefs that killing is wrong. War is as necessary as happiness. Happiness is what makes our continued survival worthwhile, and war is the way that humans protect their happiness. The urge to engage in the "pursuit of happiness" is not only a nationally protected right but a human instinct. You are willing to "bypass" your beliefs about the taking of life to protect your instinctual desire to protect your happiness. Yet sexual attraction is a human instinct as well, key to happiness. And you are not wiling to make a moral "bypass" for it.

Affairs of church and state are meant to be kept separate, according to current government mandate. Therefore God cannot give the government authority to kill murderers. If church and state are to remain separate, than any debates over gays in the military should not involve the word God, as the military and all connected matters are obviously affairs of state. It should merely come down to functionality and the respect of rights. It is equally obvious that this is not nearly the case in the US government today, and will be impossible as long as the people maintain religious beliefs and indulge in the so-called "opiate of the masses."

PLEASE NOTE: I am not against religion, it merely irritates me when people allow their religion to enter politics when it is meant to be separate.

Old thread, but...
Studies have been conducted into the national militaries of several nations (Australia, Canada, Britain, Israel) in order to determine the effect that allowing gays to serve openly has.
Many soldiers and commanders threatened to quit or be rebellious or whatever if gays were allowed.
These countries then allowed gays to serve openly.

The result? Nothing changed.

Most homophobia tends to come from ignorance and such, and as well society itself promotes homophobia in various different forms (including by discriminating against gays).
Banning them sets a bad precedent: Soldiers are meant to fight for their country, not to create little cliques in which they can socialise and be merry. Just because a soldier may not like X is not a reason to ban X at all. If a soldier doesn't like the idea of being near a gay person, then they are free to abstain from joining the military. Quite simply, we can't allow intolerance to define policy in this manner. Indeed, we've overcome it twice: With blacks and women. In both instances, the exact same arguments were made. Indeed, back then, it could actually lead to problems, whereas all the evidence today suggests that it doesn't really. Indeed, the evidence today suggests that even most soldiers are fine with gays in the military.

I recently read that Arabic translators were fired because they came out as gay. I find that absolutely outrageous that our leadership considers this petty moralist issue to be more important than the defence of our country (in the war on terror, you had better bet that Arabic speakers are pretty much required).

So, to review:
1. Gays in the military do not harm us in any way.
2. We cannot allow intolerance to define our policy, because that pointlessly cripples us.
3. By allowing gays in the military, we decrease the total intolerance in society.
4. We harm ourselves by not allowing gays in the military.

I don't particularly think that a man or woman being gay or lesbian affects their ability to function as a soldier. I've heard people say 'oh, but what if they start hitting on other soldiers, and blah blah, exc.' I think this statement is ignorant, in that, sexual orientation is in no way an indication of said soldier's ability to serve his/her country. I think this issue of having a problem with gays in the military is just someone being overly picky.

As was said above, good for them if they can take the initiative to make a stand for the country they love.